The so‑called “Louisiana Purchase” of 1803 was legally invalid. It violated a treaty between Spain and France, exceeded the constitutional authority of the United States President, and was executed by a government (France) that lacked lawful title to the territory. Consequently, the United States never acquired de jure sovereignty over Louisiana. The Spanish Cabildo of New Orleans – the last lawful governing body of the province – was never lawfully dissolved; it was suppressed by an illegal act of occupation. Under the international law doctrine of state continuity, an illegally suppressed government continues to exist. The Restored Cabildo is therefore the legitimate successor to the Spanish colonial government. It has been organized as a legal entity under Louisiana law (HB 892) and will convene a digital Cabildo Abierto (open council) to elect a Provisional Assembly, which will then notify the Spanish Crown of the restoration. The Crown’s silence will be interpreted as tacit acquiescence, allowing the Cabildo to exercise its lawful authority.
In 1800, Spain and France signed the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso, by which Spain retroceded Louisiana to France. Critically, France promised Spain that it would never “sell or alienate Louisiana to a third party.” Napoleon violated this express condition when he sold the territory to the United States in 1803. A treaty obligation breached by one party is voidable; therefore, France’s transfer to the United States conveyed no lawful title.
President Thomas Jefferson, a strict constructionist of the US Constitution, acknowledged that the federal government possessed no enumerated power to acquire foreign territory. He privately drafted a constitutional amendment to authorize the purchase, but the Senate ratified the treaty without it. Jefferson later described the act as exceeding his constitutional mandate. A governmental act that exceeds constitutional authority is ultra vires and void ab initio.
France had only recently reacquired Louisiana from Spain via the 1800 treaty, the validity of which is itself questionable because it was a secret agreement never intended for public enforcement. Moreover, France never effectively possessed or governed large portions of the claimed territory, which were inhabited by sovereign Indigenous nations. A nation cannot sell what it does not lawfully own.
Conclusion: The chain of title is broken. The United States exercised de facto control, but it never obtained de jure sovereignty over Louisiana.
The Spanish colonial Cabildo (formally the “Illustrious Cabildo”) was established in 1769 as the municipal government of New Orleans. Under Spanish colonial law, the Cabildo exercised authority over land grants, public works, market regulation, public health, and other matters that often affected the entire province of Louisiana. It was the embodiment of Spanish civil authority in the region.
The Cabildo continued to function until 1803, when the United States assumed de facto control. Because the transfer of sovereignty to the United States was itself illegal (as shown in Section 1), the act of the U.S. governor in abolishing the Cabildo was an act of an occupying power, not a legitimate sovereign. The Cabildo was never lawfully dissolved; it was suppressed by force.
Under the civil law tradition (which governs Louisiana to this day), corporate bodies such as a cabildo possess continuing legal personality unless extinguished by a lawful act of a legitimate sovereign. No such act occurred. Therefore, the Cabildo continues to exist de jure.
International law recognizes the principle of state continuity: when a state or government is unlawfully suppressed by an occupying power, its legal personality does not disappear. The modern precedent is the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), which were illegally annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940. Western nations never recognized the annexation, and the Baltic states continued to exist de jure, with diplomatic missions operating in exile. When they regained independence in 1991, they claimed restoration, not creation of new states.
The same principle applies to the Cabildo. The United States’ takeover of Louisiana was an illegal act of seizure. The Cabildo, as the local embodiment of Spanish sovereignty, was unlawfully suppressed. Under the doctrine of continuity, the Restored Cabildo is not a “new” government; it is the restoration of the pre‑existing, lawful authority.
The passage of time does not cure an original illegality. The Cabildo’s claim is not barred by delay, because the occupation was maintained by force and the Creole people never voluntarily consented to American rule.
In 2024, the Louisiana legislature passed HB 892, the “Louisiana Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act” (DUNA Act). This law allows for the formation of “decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations” that can own property, enter contracts, receive donations, and use blockchain technology for governance. The Restored Cabildo has been formed as a DUNA under this Act.
The DUNA is a pragmatic legal vehicle. It gives the Cabildo a legal identity, the ability to open bank accounts, and a liability shield for its members – all while preserving a decentralized, member‑governed structure that mirrors the historic cabildo abierto.
The cabildo abierto (open cabildo) was a traditional Spanish colonial institution: an emergency assembly of citizens convened to deliberate on public policy and, when necessary, to appoint a new government. In the tradition of the cabildo abierto, the Restored Cabildo will hold a digital election to seat a Provisional Assembly of 15 delegates.
The election provides a direct democratic mandate, complementing the historical‑legal continuity of the Cabildo.
After the Provisional Assembly is seated and the Regent‑Captain is elected, the Cabildo will formally notify His Majesty King Felipe VI of Spain of the restoration of the province of Luisiana del Sur. The notification will request that the Crown send an attaché to observe the electoral process and to serve as a diplomatic liaison.
The Crown is under no obligation to respond. If it remains silent, that silence will be interpreted, under international law, as tacit acquiescence to the restoration. The Cabildo will then continue to exercise its lawful authority without interference from the original sovereign.
The Restored Cabildo of Luisiana del Sur is not a new invention. It is the lawful successor to the Spanish colonial government that was illegally suppressed in 1803. Its legitimacy rests on:
The Restored Cabildo invites the Creole people of Luisiana del Sur to participate in the Cabildo Abierto and to join in the peaceful, lawful restoration of self‑government.
Register to vote. Stand for election. Build the Creole State.
Issued by the Restored Illustrious Provisional Cabildo of Luisiana del Sur
M. Boudreaux, Regent‑Captain (Provisional)